Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I open this meeting of the planning commission on 10/27/2025 at 06:30PM. Clerk, please call the roll.

Chair Reynolds. Here. Vice chair Almond. Commissioner Coronado. Commissioner Neely. Commissioner Rudulovich? Present. Commissioner Roethlisberger? Here. Commissioner Santana?

Here.

Commissioner Goodman? Here. With commissioner Coronado absent, commissioner Goodman moves in a voting position. We have quorum.

Alright. Thank you. If you're able, please rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance. I am seeing no modifications to the published agenda. So the agenda is approved as presented.

We do have one set of minutes to be approved. The certification of the minutes of 09/22/2025. I'll call for a motion.

I moved to approve based on the clerk certification the 09/22/2025 regular meeting of the Littleton Planning Commission.

Second.

We have a motion to approve the minutes by commissioner Roethlisberger and a second by commissioner Goodman. I will set up the voting.

We can do thumbs up, thumbs down. Oh, no. Looks like it's working now. The vote is five in favor. The motion carries.

Thank you. So if you would like to address the planning commission under public comment, please do sign in on the public speaker form before the call to order. Public comment is an opportunity to express opinions regarding issues that are not a part of the public hearings on this evening's agenda. There will be a separate opportunity to speak regarding those items. Each speaker during this public comment period is limited to three minutes. Please be civil, and please understand that under open meetings law, we cannot take action on items that have not been published on the agenda. We have one person signed up, Pam Chadbourne.

Good evening, My name is Pam Chadbourne. I live a block or so from here. And I have a continuing theme of requesting that Planning Commission advocate for the need for an update to the comp plan. Now it is overdue and an improvement in the comp plan. The first comp plan was not we did get a transportation mobility plan with it, but it wasn't integrated at all.

The code changes that are suggested in the OUC and hinted at in the comp plan, that was never those traffic impacts or transportation impacts were never analyzed and interpreted and incorporated and integrated with the TMP. So it's just a fundamental break in the basic planning the two basic planning documents that we had six now and plus years ago. In addition, the comp plan in our vision we had five goals, but the comp plan had some very general ideas, and they were not carried forward in the UOUC. So now that we can see those kind of failures occurring, and this lack of integration with the TMP and the lack of the integration or the implementation of the comp plan in the ULUC, it's time to fix those, to identify them and fix them. And we're way past that point.

In fact, we're overdue. So Planner Cushion, I want planning. I want urban design. I want that expertise on staff. I want us to be able to see from the comp plan what the code changes and updates need to be.

I want to report on the success or failures from our first comp plan to complete peak in the UFC so that those can be fixed in the next comp plan update. We're not even starting it. You folks aren't talking about it. And even worse to me, I go to historic preservation board and I go to environmental stewardship board, historic preservation commission and environmental stewardship board. And neither of those plans have been either finished or talked about being incorporated into the new comp plan.

So we need a transportation mobility board effort that's integrated with the comp plan, but also the environmental stewardship goals and accomplishments that they need done. And also, the historic preservation board was promised a historic preservation plan within a year of the UOEC, and it was never done. So we need urban design. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the audience who would like to speak during general public comment for items not on the agenda? Seeing none, we'll move on to general business items, of which we have none, but we do have public hearing items. The first item is PC resolution zero eight dash twenty twenty five recommending approval to city council to rezone a portion of 5850 South Broadway from neighborhood commercial to corridor mixed. We'll first hear from the staff and then the applicant, and then we'll open this up for public comments after that.

Good evening. Thank you. And I just wanted to preface this. We have two applications tonight, but actually only one applicant. The applications are intertwined. However, as the the requested motion does differ, we are presenting them as two different motions.

Okay. Alright. So I'll read the title of the second element. I see we have an a and a b. So, the second element of that is PC resolution 09Dash2025, conditionally approving a conditional use permit for 5850 South Broadway.

Thank you. So

tonight for the rezoning, just quickly going over the agenda, we will go through the requested action application details, the decision criteria, and staff's analysis ending with staff's recommendation. So tonight for the rezoning, the applicant is requesting the rezoning of the eastern portion of 5850 South Broadway from neighborhood commercial to corridor mixed. This applicant has been in the process with us for just over a year now. They held their first neighborhood meeting in July 2024 with their second followed in April on 04/03/2020 that is a typo there. That should be 2025.

This hearing was posted according to the ULUC's requirements. And now diving into the application details. This site does sit just under 10 acres, and the lot is currently split zoned with vehicle sales in the western portion of the parcel that is zoned Centimeters. So that is where CarMax conducts the majority of their business. However, there is a portion that is split zoned NC neighborhood commercial that is mostly unimproved and is currently used for employee and patron parking.

The comp plan did envision this portion or this lot as being designated corridor mixed. And so, again, this lot is split zoned with the western portion being Centimeters and the eastern portion being NC. The applicant is requesting a rezone so that the entirety of the parcel, is zoned Centimeters. And once again, this is the feature land use and character map designation. Just wanted to touch on some of the history on, this parcel.

So we don't have great records of when this parcel was split zoned. It appears to have happened sometime between 1993 and 2005 are the records that we were able to find when this lot was zoned b two and transitional. In 2011, CarMax came to the city with an application for a conditional use that did maximize the use of the lot with that split zone. The Centimeters portion was conditionally approved in 2011 for vehicle sales, and the portion that is was zone transition at the time now in c was approved for the parking of employees and patrons only. Vehicle sales is not allowed in the transitional use nor is it allowed in the NC zone district.

The surrounding context of the site, to the north, the, the northern parcel is zoned C M or the two parcels are zoned C M and C M P L 0. To the west, that is still the CarMax lot. We have Centennial. To the south, the that parcel is also split zone, Centennial, which has this zoned as NC 12. However, that can really just be easily characterized as single family residential.

The applicant submitted an a decision criteria, and staff also did their analysis based off of the criteria on your screen. And going through those point by point, the decision criteria requires consistency, and staff has found that this application is consistent with the corridor mix use character of the future land use and character map. It is also compatible with the surrounding areas. The lot is already used partially zoned Centimeters. Rezoning the mint remaining of the the remainder of the lot would create consistency and compatibility with the rest of the parcel.

Staff does not find that there would be any negative impacts to traffic as this rezoning is actually just for a staging area for vehicles, and there's also not any direct access to the street from this portion of the lot. Staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts to adequate to public facilities, and staff didn't was not able to identify any natural features on-site and so does not expect any adverse impacts to the natural environment. And so tonight, staff is recommending approval of the resounding to, to recommend approval of the resounding to the city council of resolution zero eight series, twenty twenty five.

Thank you for the presentation on the rezoning. Heard from staff. We'll now hear from the applicant.

Hi there. Thank you so much. Who's this? Can you hear me? Great. Do we need to swear in the entire applicant team if people are gonna speak? Okay. Perfect. My name is Cassidy Clements. I will be giving the presentation this evening for the, rezoning and conditional use permit portion of the project.

So I'll start with the rezoning presentation. So we are here to talk about the, Carmex expansion lot. This is the general location. It is located off of South Broadway Road and incorporated in Littleton. The expansion lot rezoning is, like Andrea said, to, correct the split zone district issue that we have on-site and allow for rightsizing the operations on the existing Carmax site.

The rezoning from neighborhood commercial to corridor mixed would allow CarMax to utilize its existing property to rightsize those operations and use this area as what we call work in progress or WIP as you might have seen on some of the plans. That's really just staging cars and getting them ready to move to the display display lot. There is no heavy mechanical or paint operations that happen on this site. It is really just getting it ready for the sales staging. As you can see here, here's a street view of kind of what's going on in the site.

We will have fencing and guardrail along the expansion perimeter. We have an existing 30 foot wide Denver water easement. We worked with Denver Water on, figuring out the appropriate gate options to ensure access to that public water easement. We will have security options, as it'll be a gate. I cannot remember the name of the gate right now.

Excuse me. But it's 30 foot wide, and it allows for, access to that Denver water easement if need be. That's a proposed expansion area, and there will be a break in the masonry wall to allow for access to the existing site. So just showing our engineered site plan, it is going to be an expansion parking lot. We will be meeting all of the landscaping and screening requirements to the adjacent single family residential to the east of the lot.

We did work with the city of Centennial and Andrea on the lighting plan to ensure that we met the lighting standards adjacent to residential development. I know Andrea just went through this, so I'll quickly go through. We find that we meet the municipal code criteria tonight. We're consistent with the city's ULOC and the comprehensive plan. We find that the proposed use is compatible with the existing Carmax facility and corridor mixed zoning on the site.

Again, we are rezoning to, make sure that we can utilize the entire Carmax site for the Carmax operations. The traffic generated for this site will be negligible. There will not be an expansion of staff at this time. This is, again, just to rightsize those operations and ensure that the existing facility can operate the way that it needs to. We find that the proposed use does consider the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding parcels. Like I said, we worked with the city of Centennial to make sure that we were adequately screening and having lighting requirements, that protected the single family residential to our east. And that is all I have for you. Thank you so much.

Alright. Do any members of planning commission have initial questions for either the applicant or staff? Alright. Seeing none. I will open the public comment portion of the public hearing at 06:46PM. And I'll just one quick question for legal. I've got two separate hearings here. So this is just for the proposal to rezone the site.

Yes, sir.

Mhmm. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify that. I do have one person signed up to speak regarding the proposal to rezone, Pam Chadbourne. And the other person to sign up, just for the record, was Cassidy, who we just heard from. So thank you. I was

very eager to speak to her.

So my name is still Pam Chapman. I'm still a block from here. But I'm gonna say I did grow up on the West Side Of Broadway a few blocks from here. So I'm familiar with Broadway and how it's changed over time. When I grew up, there was a chiropractor's office across the street with an acre farm with goats and chickens and turkeys and stuff, medical office use.

It's a you know, the change in Broadway is, I think, an interesting impact on Littleton and maybe something that, again, a good planning process would talk about at some other time. But I'm going to say this rezoning. I would have no problem and I would vote no for the proposed rezoning from neighborhood commercial corridor mix, and there's two fundamental reasons. One is in staff did a good job of explaining this. Our code that created the Littleton that everybody says they love and came here for people drive here and say, Look, I rode all around and I like Littleton.

It looked different. Something about it looks different, and that's what I like. You know what it is? Part of that is that fine grained zoning that we had with the transitional from commercial uses to residential. And it is immaterial that the residential is in Greenwood Village, but I wonder if staff sent those postcards to Greenwood Village.

There was a time that Littleton actually said when they were asked, stuff said, Oh, no, but we don't send them in other jurisdictions. So I want to make sure that the Greenwood Village people knew about this. That, I think, to me, would be important. But we should not permanently rezone this use. Transitional zoning is part of what created the Littleton that makes Littleton special and what people love.

And, that step use change is vital. And I'm going to say also the concept that well, it might be okay for vehicle sales now. It might be, but this is a permanent change of zoning, and it is not good for the future of Littleton. Corridor mix should not be adjacent to residential uses like this. I would vote no because it's not consistent and it's not compatible with our zoning and our Littleton values in the way that we've done our land use for many, many decades.

And when this lot sells, quarter mixed use will not be appropriate. I'm also going to just kind of mention that the big. There was a drainage, a flood zone, right uphill from this as well. And I think that's something that I didn't see anything about. And there's also no way that you can make car vehicle lighting this close to residential work. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak regarding the rezoning proposal? Seeing none, I'll just note that we open the public hearing at 06:46PM, and we are closing the public hearing at 06:50PM. At this point, are there any questions that Planning Commission have for staff? Certainly.

So looking at the next set of plans or what have you, you can see that there's a there's a plan on how to how to get the drains to ripraps and things of that nature. I don't see where this actually drains to. It's not in the maps. It's probably further north of this site. I just don't know exactly where it's going to because I know that there's a 30 foot easement there and that the yeah.

They're gonna put some riprap in to basically slow the water down and then and then let it flow through their parking lot to wherever its final destination is. I just don't know where that would be and if it's adequate to to handle. It's already flowing that direction, it looks like, anyway, so I'm sure it's probably set up to handle it. I just would like to know where that is at, if possible.

Yes. So the applicant may have some knowledge of of that. I I would like to say that we did have extensive engineering review on this, And I I did pull up the utility map locator, and it does appear that there is a storm sewer on that side of Broadway that heads south and connects into a larger network. But I'd be more than happy to have the applicant's input. Thank you.

Thank you. This is Rick from Inertia Engineering. He's gonna speak with you about that question. Thank you.

Hey. So to your question, the drainage, there's existing inlets on-site, and they're gonna be utilized for the existing site. And then as it goes and gets paved, we're gonna put in a little swale, and then all the water is gonna go to the existing the inlets. And then it'll be routed through the existing infrastructure to the pond that's already there. And then there's a an engineered outfall there that'll outlet, an eight inch all the way south from the northern side all the way south. So, we have all the documentation and everything that shows that the existing flow and the proposed flow are going to be the proposed flow will be less than the existing flow in the ultimate condition.

Okay. Thank you.

Yep.

I'm not an expert in Centennial's code. So I know it said you you you said you all worked with them to work with the lighting standards and their other standards. Do they have any sort of setback standards and things like that? I know that this is a Littleton property, and they kind of don't apply. But I just would like to have a better understanding of what their standards look like as compared to ours and how they're being met?

So we did not review city of Centennial's zoning requirements. We did work very closely with city of Centennial on any concerns that they had. They did review this project through three rounds of review until we were able to get to approval for it. So I cannot speak to their setback requirements. I can tell you that because of the development, we did require a type b buffer yard, which does have, I believe, at least seven and a half feet of separation between, the proposed graded lot and the, the property line.

Okay. Was there I don't recall seeing any documentation in my in my paperwork. I I could have missed it, absolutely, about what about city of Centennial being okay with with things. I I definitely

We did not include, referral comments in the staff packet.

That's I know it's probably not necessary information, but I think it's nice to know that our neighbors are okay with things as they sit, at least in a documented form before I come here. That's just my 2¢ on it. So it looks like that this isn't even a the parking lot that's already there that's in neighborhood commercial is already violating our current zoning code. Correct? I mean, if you just looked at what the zoning was, it wouldn't be allowed. Like, there was a bare lot, we couldn't put parking there now.

No, you could. So that is allowed in the NC Zone District 4. It's called in the code, both current and previous off parking, which does allow for parking of employees and patrons of the site, which is the only use of that northern portion of the parcel.

So we're looking to add more for sale cars then in these spots. What I mean, I I kinda don't understand why why we need the change if we could just put more parking down as it is.

I can appreciate the confusion. So difference is so there are cars that will certainly be parked there, but will not be used as a parking lot as defined in the code. So the code does define the parking lot as being for licensed and operable vehicles that are parked there temporarily, typically only for employees and patrons of the site. Cars that are being worked on, really do fall more inherently into that vehicle sales portion as that is the that portion of lot is servicing the vehicle sales. So they won't be displayed there, but it is an extension of the business's operations.

And I think this was some back and forth that occurred in 2024 originally when we came in for the development. CarMax was previously under the impression that we could develop that as further parking because it is allowed on the northeastern portion of the site. It was an interpretation by the land use attorney for the city of Littleton that it needed to be changed, like Andrea said, to, allow the vehicle sales on the southeastern portion of the lot and not just off-site parking for customer employees.

Okay. So the portion that we're talking about, will it be used for vehicle sales?

The portion that we are talking about this evening contains two portions. So it's the entire, north to south stretch on the east side. The northern portion will still continue to be for customer and employee parking. And then the south portion of the site and I don't know if I could share my screen to show a site plan just to be thank you. Perfect. So this portion right here that is currently undeveloped, it is that grassy field with a little driveway through it, this will be the work in progress lot. This will be the vehicle staging and storage. And storage is a short term storage. It's not a long term storage option. Again, it is just getting us ready to take these cars to the sales lot to the okay. Sorry.

That that's fine. You keep you keep going. I'm I'm sorry. Is it okay?

I was just gonna say to the west of this parking lot.

Okay. There is a provision in neighborhood commercial that allows for, like, vehicle service minor that does and this does not fit that description?

I think that was a a part of our argument at the beginning of this process that it could meet that description. It was the interpretation by the city of Littleton land use attorney that it did not.

Was there a further explanation as to why it didn't? Because I'm assuming you're probably cleaning the cars out, maybe doing oil changes, things of that nature. These seem like minor things to me, not a complete engine rebuild or something like that you do would do in an auto shop.

I will let the city of Littleton representative speak

to that.

Yeah. Absolutely. So we did review this. We did feel that this is in preparation for sales. So it'd be the storage of vehicles for sale.

So therefore, in addition, the original CUP only allowed for certain items. Right? And it it truly indicated in that CUP for parking for commercial or excuse me, not commercial, but for customer and employees. So regardless, we'd still be going through a CUP process at a minimum, but we did feel that the zoning aspect of it had two defined uses that often that the minor, etcetera, you know, certain things were not allowed. This was a means of utilizing the site for ultimately the sales of those vehicles.

I don't know. I I kinda feel like you're being made to go through an extra hoop that you kind of didn't need to, in my opinion. There just seems to be a lot of talk about variances and things. Why can't we just issue a variance for this use?

Use variances are prohibited in the code, so you are not able to seek a variance for use.

Oh, so what you're saying is that variances are not a thing in our code, is what you're saying?

No. Variances are a thing in our code, but they're not for uses. So you can't vary from a use. You can vary from a setback, a height, things of that nature. A bulk standard, absolutely.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much.

Any additional questions for staff or the applicant?

Yeah. Have a couple of questions. So, one when that the postcards are sent out for zoning, does that include all addresses within 700 feet? It does include those residents of Centennial?

Yes. And I'd be happy to walk through our process.

Okay.

So we do our we have our own internal GIS map that does, you know, if we draw out the border that we need, and we have to download two different Excel spreadsheet files. One is Arapahoe County, and the other is City Of Littleton owners. So the Arapahoe County has all owners identified or all properties identified within that buffer zone. City Of Littleton has all residents' addresses, and we kind of we do some fine tuning on that to make sure that we're not sending out duplicates to the same address. So city events of Centennial is certainly captured in that, and we wanted to be sensitive to that.

Okay. Good. Thank you.

Can I also add to that that we I had did not work for CenterPoint at the time of the first community meeting, but the second community meeting had three people attend, and two of them were city of Centennial residents who lived in the neighborhood adjacent to this property?

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I did want to just expected that was the case. I wanted to confirm that. For the when we're talking about a conditional use permit, right? And maybe I just didn't get there in when I was going through. Is there a specific so as it as it I guess what I'm if there's one thing I would genuinely dislike about car parking lots, it's the lighting. They do tend to be very light polluting. So I wonder that conditional use permit, does that have a lighting plan that

It certainly does. And I will say that that is a part of the next application we will be discussing. But as a part of the requirements for the conditional use, we did require a lighting plan to be provided. We worked, extensively with the applicant to ensure that it was, within compliance.

Okay. And the lighting does Centennial have a lighting plan that would as far like, for

They do know that they're extra residential. Issues that we were working with with the with staff from City of Centennial. Okay. And, again, we referred that out to them three times, ensuring that we could get approval from City of Centennial for this.

Okay. Good. Andrea was great and coordinated a meeting with the City and Centennial planners. So we were able to go through the lighting plan, the three of us, and just ensure that we addressed all of their concerns and city of Littleton's concerns as well.

Okay. Great. Yeah. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure we had those covered. Is there a conditional use permit in effect with the parking lot on the northern side of the lot? Or is it just or is that because it's a parking lot and not a storage that it didn't have one?

Original conditional use splits out the conditions into two sections, one for the portion that was initially zoned B2, now Centimeters, and the other that was zoned transitional, now NC. So there are two conditional uses with conditions for both spelled out in that original conditional use. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Any additional questions? For

city attorney, what does the code talk about? Does the code reference split zoning and legality of that, or it's just silent?

We don't have we don't have any information on split zoning. And, one of the things that we did discuss when this first came up is if it was an error. I mean, if it was something that could be corrected, but it was very deliberate given the conditional use permit from way back when I know that there is believe there's a property to the south that may also have split zoning as well. And I believe that was also intentional.

Okay. Thank

you. But no, code does not have anything currently.

And then I did have one question for staff. Just wanted to confirm that the comprehensive plans classification for the entire site, including the proposed rezoning area, is corridor mixed? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. With that, I will call for a motion and second and discussion on the proposal to rezone a portion of the property.

Alright. I move to approve PC resolution zero eight dash two zero two five, recommending approval to the city council to rezone a portion of 5850 South Broadway from Neighborhood Commercial to Corridor Mix.

I believe we have a motion by Commissioner Goodman, and I think Commissioner Santana narrowly crossed the line with the second. So we have a motion and a second. Discussion. I'll start with the lonely person to my right.

Oh, here we go. Thank you for the presentation. I'm not a big fan of split zoning, so I do like to see the consistency across the lot proposed here. I do think that it is consistent with the proposed uses, and I also agree that if the comp plan calls for Centimeters on this whole parcel, that it's a good move to bring it all under a single zoning description. I agree with staff that the use is, compatible and consistent across the site.

I don't I I take it at face value that there are no natural features and, you know, nature to be worried about on this parcel, and I certainly support it in that regard. And I do like to that we have taken into consideration the neighbors on the west side with the screening fence, which should prevent any headlights from going through to people's property, and we'll probably see the lighting plan. But in general, I I'm in favor of this rezoning, so I would recommend it to council.

Thank you. Commissioner Rodulovich, any comments?

Just as far as the environmental thing goes, there's actually 10 more trees that are getting planted through there. So we're adding to the canopy by building a parking lot. It just makes no sense. But other than that, I think this meets the criteria that we're that we've got here. It's odd to split a lot that's owned like this. It's just kinda strange. So I will support this.

Yeah. I know I'm I'm in support, I think, again, because it does align with the future land use in the plan. The whole fact that it was split zone to begin with was kind of mind blowing to me that we would do that across a single lot. Didn't make sense to me. So I do think it makes sense to make it cohesive and in line with the the overall city plan and city zoning map. So I will also be in support.

Yeah. I I agree with what everybody else has said. I think it it meets all of the decision criteria. I'm fundamentally opposed to split zoning. It just doesn't make any sense to me to draw a line in the sand in the center of some parcel and say, can do this here and buy not over there. So, yeah, I'll be a I'll be a yes vote.

Yeah. And, thank you for all the comments. I I don't have anything significant to add other than to note that I appreciated the efforts that both staff and the applicant made to, get into the record the their evaluation of the decision criteria and finding that the proposal does meet them. And as commissioner Santana pointed out that our comprehensive plan does designate this as a corridor mixed site in its entirety. So with that, I will call for the vote and try to make the screen work properly this time.

The vote is five in favor. The motion carries.

Alright. Thank you. And the second portion of this item is PC resolution zero nine dash twenty twenty five conditionally approving a conditional use permit for 5850 South Broadway. And I understand we had questions about specifics of the plan, and this is where we'll get to hear more about that. As before, we'll start with the, staff and applicant presentation followed by questions, and then open the public hearing.

Just waiting for the presentation. Oh, it's on my end. I apologize. So before diving into staff's presentation, I did hear quite a bit of interest in the lighting plan. I will be upfront.

That is not in this presentation. However, it is a part of the site plan that is included in your packet. If you all have access to that, it is the very last sheet. And so for this resolution, we will be discussing the conditional use of the law in its entirety. This conditional use will supersede the existing conditional use on-site.

However, as the site is existing in its current form, staff is only focusing on the proposed lot expansion. So tonight, staff is the applicant has requested approval to expand the existing conditional use of vehicle sales, rental, and leasing on the entirety of the parcel, extending to the eastern portion that planning commission has just recommended to has approved recommendation to the city council. These applications have been run concurrently, so the neighborhood and public noticing is the same as the previous application. And many of the site details are the same. However, again, this is a request to expand the conditional use, which allows for vehicle sales to the eastern portion of the site in order to allow for the staging of vehicles in order to be repaired and then sold by CarMax.

On your screen, you have the engineered site plans that the applicant had had up earlier. On that very eastern edge, you can see their type b buffer yard, and this is a proposed striping plan that shows how the cars will be stacked for that maintenance as well as some other finer details such as fencing outlined here. Staff did analyze this application in accordance to the decision criteria found in the code and has the following analysis. Staff believes that the expansion of the conditional use helps accommodate the growing needs of the business. It may increase tax revenue, so we do believe that there are some proposed benefits here.

We also believe that the application has been reviewed to ensure compliance with the code, including the requirement to install that buffer yard as well as outdoor lighting standards to mitigate any negative impacts. And staff also believes that, detrimental impacts have been mitigated on-site, again, by reviewing in accordance to, compliance with the code. Staff tonight is recommending approval of the conditional use resolution zero nine twenty twenty five with the following conditions. The first is that city council approves the applicant's rezoning request, and the second is a conditional use that is being carried over from that original conditional use, which again will be superseded by this one, that no outdoor display ramps shall be permitted. Thank you.

And I will, ask the applicant to come back for their presentation again.

Alright. I'm ready whenever you are. I don't know what who I'm looking for, but okay. So we are here to talk about the conditional use permit for the Carmex and the city of Littleton. Again, subject property.

These slides are gonna look very familiar to you. Again, showing the site plan of the expansion subject property, that portion up on the Northeast that will be included in this conditional use permit and the existing Garmaxx facility. Again, just demonstrating the expansion area and the site plan for this project. That is, again, a WIP expansion for a 128 spaces, about 0.75 acres. Going through that municipal code criteria, we found that the proposed use does provide benefits to the city of Littleton community, as Andrea stated.

The proposed expansion area has been evaluated and designed to ensure a minimization of adverse impacts. We included a fence adjacent to the residential uses. It blew down in a storm a few years back, and CarMax replaced it. It's about an eight foot high privacy fence. So we replaced that between us and the adjacent landowners. And then the proposed use will not be a detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare welfare of the surrounding community. We are continuing to use the existing transportation plan, patterns and providing adequate landscaping and screening. Thank you so much.

Thank you, staff and applicant. Any members of Planning Commission have questions for either staff or applicant?

Bless you. Bless you.

Alright. Seeing no questions, I will move on to the public hearing portion at 07:14PM. We do not have any individuals signed up to speak regarding the conditional use permit. Is there anyone present in the audience who would like to speak? Yes, please.

My name is Pam Chapborn, and I still live close to here. I would myself not approve this conditional use permit. It's because of lighting. Littleton had lighting code based on the model lighting ordinance, which is the agreement between the international Illumination Engineers and the Dark Sky Society for ten years, from 2000 to 2010. And so when you drive around Littleton at night, you'll actually notice that some places are compliant with the MLO lighting code.

There's downward directed, full cutoff lighting, and it's nice when you see it. But in 2010, we had we lost our city our city manager retired. We had an activist mayor, and he directed from the bench that we reconsidered the model lighting ordinance in it for various reasons, four to three vote, we lost the model lighting ordinance base code. So the new land use code didn't fix that, and it just kind of has the lighting we have now. It's a pity because with the build out of the 110 acres of Ensor and other things like that, we have the opportunity to have better lighting, and we're just blowing it everywhere, acre by tens of acres by hundreds of acres.

So it's terrible. So again, I've said that I don't believe Carlisle's can be compatible with residential, not across the street. I'm going to tell you from personal experience that across the street, I know my father had to live with those and everybody else his 29 homes on the West Side Of Broadway with the car lots on the East Side. And it doesn't work. I'm also going to point out that research into the health effects of lighting is ongoing, but one of the really shocking things to me is that there is a worldwide you can look at the entire Earth and look at the illumination that's visible, the light coming off of the Earth and outward.

And it correlates totally with cancer, breast cancer in women. So light at night is bad for our health, and our current code does not solve the intrusion and the pollution of light from car lots into cars that I know are across the street, and certainly not adjacent. I don't believe that our code would protect the health of the neighbors here, and I would not approve this conditional use.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak regarding this item? Do we have any additional questions for the applicant or staff? I may have some lighting questions.

Yeah. Mean, I'm looking at the lighting plan on the back end of this, and I think it's twisted a little bit. I mean, tell by I have to do that, and then it turns. Are all of the sites that are marked here one one through four, those were the light poles are meant to be?

Do you mind pulling up the lighting plan? Do you know if I can do a swap?

I think you can.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Great.

Okay. So ask me that question one more time. Sorry.

So there's one, two there's spots that are marked here one through four that point to various spots on this map. Are those where the light poles are are expected to to be?

Oh, I'm not exactly sure. I think because it's one four two four and then three, they're highlighting the different areas and different things that will are shown on the the site plan, including so if you could see number four, you see the dotted, items that are right here.

That's good. A is there a key that I'm missing somewhere on this?

I'm hoping that it might be in

I think it's the orange dots.

So that's showing the dates.

If I if I may real quick, just from looking at the foot candle readings, it looks like the orange rectangles are the lighting pictures.

Yeah. So you see the dots? So that's a gate. Four and four at the on the north end. Those are both Gibraltar Gates. I remembered the word, by the way. And then just to the west of the that gate right there, that orange little box gotta love CAD. That's a light pole.

Sorry. So there's a total of, looks like, five light poles in here. Two of them are looks like up against the building practically. Right?

Yes. Two of them are up against the building.

If not mounted on the building, most likely.

Right. I need to I would need to count before I say definitively.

May I may I help? Go ahead. Yes.

Go ahead.

Yeah. So there's a there's actually a table at the very bottom of this that says that there are three to be mounted at 26 feet, and then there are two, which is not on the building, but they're next to the wall. And they say that they are to be mounted to be added to existing poles that are either on or adjacent to that wall. So those those are the five fixtures that that they're referencing.

So it looks like two of them kind of already exist and are probably being improved.

Yeah. I think we're adding the second.

The like a like a second

Yeah. Existing.

On it. Okay. So it would be three posts that are being added. And are those I mean, at the bottom, this says 24 foot poles. Is that

Yes. For a total mount mounting height of 26 feet.

K.

And they are shielded light fixtures, so they meet the code in that aspect as well.

I'm guessing they're l e LED?

Yes. Correct.

Yeah. That's all I've got for right now. Thanks.

Any additional questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. I'm just looking at the the table, and I noticed that a light loss factor of point nine was used, which represents a slight dimming of the light fixtures over time. Could you talk to that as opposed to using a light loss factor of one point o, which is which would represent the brightness when the lights are flipped on on the first day?

I cannot speak to that exact metric of measurement, and we do not have our person here that created this lighting plan. Do you know the answer to that?

And will

I know.

Prep staff can

know, Bradley? The light loss light loss factor that was used to create this plan? Okay.

Alright. And prep staff can offer some guidance on does Littleton have a a standard in the code for a specific light loss factor when preparing photometrics? And and I will note having reviewed a lot of photometrics in my day job that they tend you know, codes tend to be all over the place, like, from a point eight to a one point o. It varies by jurisdiction. So

I'm not aware of a light loss factor in our code. I can tell you that the table requires the basically spill to neighboring properties that are residential to be 0.1. And that's been what we've been reviewing. And

just to confirm, it does appear that the eastern property line, all of the foot candle measurements at the eastern property line are actually zero point zero.

Yes. That is correct. I think one of the the prime reasons that it is that the shielding and then also there is that buffer yard component and existing fence back in the rear yard.

And I can't speak to the city of Littleton's code exactly, but essentially adjacent to residential, it was a request that it was close to, if not zero.

Yeah. Appreciate that. And also moving to the landscape plan, it appeared that there were 10 additional tree plantings in the buffer yard, which may further help with any spillage from the the parking lot. Is that correct?

That is our belief.

Thank you so much. Any additional questions for either the applicant or staff before moving on to

I had one more I wrote down. Outdoor display ramp, you mentioned at the end of your presentation. I can't find that in our code definition, so I don't know what that is. Can you explain it to us?

Simply It are just the ramps that vehicles are displayed on. When staff was discussing this, I don't mean to But it is a carryover. It is one of those. It's a condition that staff would not be able to impose. However, Planning Commission at the time did impose that. We did not want to really overwrite any previous decisions that were made. And so we did want to honor that. But again, that is a condition that staff could not impose onto the applicant.

Okay.

A question for the applicant. Is that fine for you?

Yes. That is fine.

In the back of the lot? Okay.

All right. Last call on comments. And seeing no one raising their hand, I appreciate the answers to the planning commission's questions. I'll call for

a motion. Giving me a new thing to research, I go home.

Okay. And I'll call for a motion in a second.

I move to approve PC resolution 09Dash2025, conditionally approving the conditional use permit for 5850SouthBroadway with the following conditions. One, city council approval of the applicant's rezoning request of the eastern portion of the subject property from neighborhood commercial to corridor mixed, and two no outdoor display ramps shall be permitted. Second.

Okay. Motion by commissioner Rudulovich, Second by Commissioner Goodman. And discussion. We'll start down here.

I mean, the criteria are fairly consistent even compared to the between the rezoning and this. There's a lot of carryover between the two. So I think this meets what it needs to meet. I do appreciate candle. I can't remember the word for it. How much the light's going to penetrate to the end of that. That's a good map as long as it's accurate, which I have no reason to believe it won't be. So I will be approving this.

Yeah. I think I think this is okay. One of the things I'm looking at, I I'm furiously googling your light fixtures actually. And the cool thing is if I'm looking at this correctly, there is a, an application that goes over the top that will further ensure that light is directed in a specific direction, which is really compressing how much goes then towards neighbors on that western side, along with that integral shielding. So thank you for that.

Yeah. I I see how it meets the conditions. I'm glad that we're kind of same with split zoning. We have a split conditional use, which we're resolving today, which is nice. I wasn't so much concerned about the lighting, but I did like seeing on the photometric that, in fact, you've met that point one to point zero in the buffer yard. It's not just, well, we did it right here, so we're all good. But in the buffer yard, it's it's at that point one to, I believe, like, point two. So I'll be a yes on this.

I concur. This, seems like a conditional use that's continuing. The use the prior use is very similar, so it's not a heavy lift. In general, I would prefer us to just refer to staff's description of a project meeting the plan the lighting plan that the city has in its lighting, code. And if it does, then I really don't think we should be trying to adjust it on the project by project basis.

That's something we need to fix in the code if we want our light levels to be lower in the neighborhood, stuff like that. So I, I'm glad we're not getting into the tinkering too much on that. And if we do, I think we should be working on our code, not on an applicant's particular project. That said, I will certainly be supporting the conditional use or recommending the council support the conditional use. Thanks.

Yeah. Thank you. Actually, the the conditional use is final approval by the planning commission. And then however, it is contingent on council's action on the rezoning based on the the motion. And I suppose should council deny the rezoning, then this would be of no further force and effect.

Yeah. I appreciated the the concerns that we heard about lighting. Lighting is tremendously important, and, you know, maintaining, you know, lighting that is relatively even without hot spots is a good design. And the photometric plan does indeed show that the applicant has used those I believe they're called the house side shields to direct, the lighting away from the adjacent neighbors and, appreciated that thoughtfulness in the design and that this does otherwise meet the, criteria we have for consideration and approval. So I will support, and I will set up the voting.

The vote is five in favor. The motion carries.

All right. Thank you, everyone, who presented or spoke on that item. We have the next section of the agenda is comments and reports. First up, community development director and staff.

Yes. Thank you very much. We have senior planner, Azarine Tasnim, here to make an update for the Planning Commission.

Good evening Planning Commission. It's been a while. I just wanted to provide you all an update that the Littleton Boulevard sub area plan was approved for council for a consultant contract back at a September council public hearing meeting. So I'm here to let you guys know of that update and to let you know we're finally be starting work on that sub area plan. I think some of you might be interested or have been kind of keeping track of where that's been progressing.

We're currently working on soliciting members for a stakeholder working group that will be participating throughout the duration of the sub area planning process which will last about eighteen to twenty four months. Part of that stakeholder working group is representation from our boards and commissions which includes planning commissions. So I'm here to formally invite and request that you all choose a member from planning commission to serve as representative on the stakeholder working group for that sub area plan. I think maybe the formal process is that the chair chooses a member.

We will work on process for the next meeting. We're not asking for selection at this meeting. Thank you. This is to inform you that this is coming and that we will want representation.

Yes. So just to inform you all and to discuss amongst yourself to make that selection and to probably let Jared know who your selection will be. We do anticipate the first stakeholder group meeting starting in the beginning of next year. So anticipating the first meeting being either January or February next year and then for meetings to meet occasionally every couple of months to discuss feedback on visioning a long quarter or different topics. One of the topics that the stakeholder group or one of the engagement aspects that the stakeholder working group will be working on is their urban design shreds.

So that's one of the tasks that the group will be working on. So some things to look forward to you, but just wanted to give you all a heads up of that's coming up, an opportunity to participate as a member of Planning Commission and kind of time commitment as required of working in that stakeholder working group, if that is of interest to any of you.

If I may add, also just for, you know, your general knowledge and for when when you talk with the public about things going on in the in the city of Littleton, you know, unlike a quasi judicial item that you aren't able to speak about, this is something that we we want a lot of participation in in the future. We'll start rolling out a number of public engagement items. And so even if you do not serve on the committee, we want your engagement in the plan, right? So whether that be through a survey, etcetera, we'll also keep the Planning Commission engaged in a number of different ways throughout the course of the planning effort.

Yes.

So we have contracted with a consulting group to do the planning process the planning process for us, but staff will also be working along with them of side by side.

I had a question. I've noticed on my GPS that suddenly Littleton Boulevard is considered a state highway. It's like C75 or something like that. Is that something new, or is that just an error on my GPS? Because one of the reasons that we have been told in the past we can't get state funding for a corridor study is because, oh, it's not a state highway. We don't care about it. But from CDOT, for the most part, they won't help us with that. I just noticed it, I don't know, a few months ago that it started popping up on my GPS that it's actually a state highway.

That's a good question.

It's a funding source. It's funding question or a funding help question, if needed, unfortunately for future things.

Don't have an answer for you. However, it wouldn't surprise me if at one point in time, sometimes jurisdictions change ownership of assets. So that may have occurred.

Alright. Any other staff announcement?

Not this time. Okay.

City attorney, city clerk.

None at this

time. We do pardon. We do have a meeting on the November 10, and then the meeting for the November 24 is canceled.

Any updates from members of the planning commission? Seeing none, no updates from the chair, which means I will adjourn this meeting at 07:37PM. Thank you, everyone.